Robin Hood

I remember hearing the premise for the film Hancock and thinking 'WOW, that sounds like it'll be a lot of fun.' Then I remember hearing about all the rewrites the film went through and re-edits in order to get a PG-13 ratings and it's no wonder that when I finally rented I was only able to make through 45 minutes before turning it off and sending it back.
Which brings me to Robin Hood, the Ridley Scott directed film starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett that aims to give Robin Hood a proper origin story. Great idea especially for me sense I grew up a huge fan of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood and let's be honest, Russell Crowe should easily be a better Robin Hood.
Sadly, all I can say about this Robin Hood is coulda shoulda woulda. The main problem the film seems to run into is that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood the filmmakers try and over load the story by creating a war between France and England and disparaging virtually everyone who has achieved anything above the standing of commoner along the way.
It should be mentioned that this film is not completely without it's merit. Kevin Durand (Keamy from Lost) is great fun to watch and in truth the performance's of Crowe, Blanchett, John Hurt, Mark Strong and the rest of the cast are all top-notch. Likewise, Scott's visual style particularly in the battle scenes is also top notch. My problem remains the fact that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood, the film makers here have tried to do too much. I'm still not sure why Crowe is not playing Robin of Locksley and when he returns from the crusades to Nottingham there is something creepy about who easily Robin of Locksley's father and wife take in the new Robin even when they know it's not him. There is also side stories of how Robin had blocked out memories of his father who was martyred when Robin was a boy for fighting for universal rights for all people.
The film spends much of the first hour and a half juggling all of it's various story lines and then hastily tries to tie everything together in order to come in with a run time under 2 and a half hours. I tried hard while watching this not to compare it the Kevin Costner version of I grew up with but in truth there are some major difference's between the films that I could not ignore. For one, the Costner Robin Hood is a man seeking redemption from a child hood of immaturity. Another difference comes in the character of Marian. In both films she is strong, but in the Scott version they take it to the level in which she might as well be Joan of Arc. And while I love Cate Blanchett as an actress she never has a chance to grow in this character to a point where I could believe the Crowe's Robin Hood could fall in love with her as easily as he does. A final note worthy comparison comes in the fact that while all the 'bad characters' are portrayed well none of them standout as thee bad guy. In the Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood Alan Rickman is tremendous as the evil sheriff. There is no point in this in which any character is seemingly Robin Hoods arch nemesis until the very end when the film begins to set up for a continuation of the Robin Hood story. Perhaps with an opportunity to tell a more focused story a sequel would be able to breath some life into the Robin Hood story. This one however just feels like a missed opportunity.